Gotta get ready for the show.. thanks for the questions and for following along. Have a great weekend!

You can catch me Monday through Friday delivering headlines from the US and around the world and breaking down the news on FNC’s signature newscast at 6PM/ET, sharing reports from correspondents and reporters around the globe. When I’m not on air, you will most likely find me on the golf course or spending time with my wife Amy and our two sons, Paul and Daniel.

This AMA is part of r/IAmA’s “Spotlight on Journalism” project which aims to shine a light on the state of journalism and press freedom in 2018. Join us for a new AMA every day in October.

1) Are you willing to say anything more about how 'multiple' separate FBI sources gave you the same unverified information (as you claimed at the time; you later retracted it to a single source), or how these unproven claims made it to air?

2) Do you believe that this 'mistake' -- your description of the event, in your retraction on Happening Now, after previously calling your wording 'inartful' -- had any impact on the election itself, given that you basically used your platform to accuse the frontrunner for the presidency of high crimes and misdemeanours less than a week before the nation went to the polls?

The original reporting was accurate and we stood by it. 1) the FBI was operating on the assumption that the servers could have been hacked.. experts believed that it was very possible considering the lack of security and 2) there WAS an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation that was open and continuing. The problem came when I was asked a hypothetical on Brit Hume's 7pm show about if she won and this went forward what would happen? and I said then prosecutors would still likely move to an indictment if they had the evidence. I clarified immediately after getting off set. and 2 - I retracted that it wasn't a certainty that the servers had been hacked.. because they had no digital footprints (although the FBI still believed it was highly likely)... and I retracted that there was any talk of an indictment.. that was an answer to a hypothetical if it moved forward -- which was ill advised. It wasn't the investigators who would make that call.

Hume: This does not sound like something that's going to be completed anytime soon, which suggests that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will take office with not one but two serious investigations of her past conduct hanging over her.

Baier: Definitely. And I pressed again and again on this very issue, and these sources said, 'Yes, the investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence', and barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to, likely, an indictment.

So...

1) The phrase 'could have been hacked' is a long way from the '99% accuracy' you claimed in your initial report.

2) You may not believe that you impacted the election, but Kellyanne Conway (and, by extension, the Trump Administration) certainly did. After your retraction, Conway noted:

'No matter how it’s being termed, the voters are hearing it for what it is — a culture of corruption. [...] It just doesn’t change what’s in voters’ minds right now and you see in the your own polling, you see in the other polling, Brian, which is — even though the polls were tightening before last Friday’s explosive announcement by Mr. Comey, you see that voters are putting it in this large cauldron of impressions and images and individuals and issues from which they eventually make a choice.'

Your reporting, such as it was, was part of this 'large cauldron of impressions and images and individuals and issues'.

3) The objectionable part of that statement is 'barring obstruction in some way', which basically alleges that both you and your FBI sources believe that the only way that it wouldn't lead to an indictment is through obstruction of the Justice Department -- which would be a felony on the part of someone presumably in the hypothetical Clinton Administration. This was not retracted. Do you believe there was obstruction, or do you believe your sources were mistaken?

That's my favorite part. Get this guy in a court room and his first answer will be "I'm not a journalist I am an 'Entertainer'. Remember that every answer this guy gives in this AMA will be written off as 'Entertainment' if he is ever pressed on the issue.

1: make false or misleading comments on your or someone else’s show
2: let it stew for a few days because your base won’t know the difference
3: retract said statements later because you knew it was wrong
4: profit from original statements because base still doesn’t know the difference.

Journalists - doing their jobs - presenting all sides - are not the enemy of the people. The president clarifies his statement to say “fake news” is the enemy of the people That’s his choice. But journalists are ideally working for more information and FOR the people.

Hi Bret. Do you think broadcast/cable media has gotten too carried away with news analysis and opinion (emphasizing either personal or corporate biases) and go back to a more objective style of reporting actual facts as they happen and leaving out the conjecture?

Is this a bot? You answered this exact answer multiple times. I believe they’re asking, since you are from a very biased channel, what are your thoughts are as a journalist on how you feel about the major news channels all being biased? You say you favor straight news, but you won’t give a straight answer.

what do you want to hear? I do MY NEWS show.. there are opinion shows on Fox.. just like the NYTimes has a news page and an opinion page. this is a straight.. I like news... I think some news networks have gotten over their skis in covering this administration. And we have to be careful to be FAIR to all sides... the end.

My question is this: any chance of a “point/counterpoint” type of show (remember that show way back when?) with someone like Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow? I ask because the ‘conservative news of the day’ and the ‘liberal news of the day’ are OFTEN two entirely different realities. And I’m not smart enough to tell which is closest to the truth - even through the ‘shades of grey’. Thanks again.

As a European, American news media comes across as very polarized. The polarization seems dangerous to me because it drives people apart instead of closer together. Would you agree and do you think that should change?

Bret, first thank you for doing this in what I am sure feels like a hostile environment. Regardless of what I think of FNC, I appreciate your time.

My question is, to what extent do you think the selection of which stories to cover is in and of itself a type of bias? Put differently, let's assume that the coverage itself is objective. Even with that, can't what the network chooses to cover and what it chooses not to cover reveal a bias?

I totally agree. story selection is a decision. and when something is NOT covered.. there is a conscious choice NOT to do that. So.. that's something we look at closely. One example.. the Hermit Gosnell story.. the abortion doctor .. wasn't anywhere - except local - until we covered it. that's a choice.

I am from Europe and I have no idea who you are.
But I assume you’re acquainted with some EU news and press. Which of those you consider having the best quality (professionally - no fake news, thorough, accurate etc.)??

To be fair I don’t think it’s confined to his network. It’s not even saved for just tv. The sensationalism of reporting is toxic and has been going on for years. It’s only really recently that reporters have lost the public trust. And I think that’s only because the public have more access to other sources of information.

And how would you address this accountability? News/journalism seems to always have had problems with keeping the facts in context.

The advent of social media etc seems to have made this type of reporting much more transparent but there seems to be little incentive for accurate and contextual information. What safeguards do you put in place to ensure unbiased and trustworthy data is released?

Is it really though? Cynical me thinks being first gets more viewers and more advertising revenue. There seems to be a formula of shoot first, issue retractions later. And the public doesn't seem to be punishing that behavior enough to cause a change.

Given that you work for Fox, you probably can't answer some of the more incisive questions I'd like to ask. That said, I am curious what it's like having personalities on Fox that appeal to the new "Trumpy" right wing. Tucker Carlson is the obvious example. Did the schism between the "old" and "new" right make its way into the halls of Fox?

He said "We have a news side and opinion side. Viewers who watch can distinguish between the two." I debated how to phrase my comment--obviously he can't speak for what other people believe, so I figured it would be clear enough that it was his opinion. I didn't want to say he believed they could differentiate, because he didn't say he believes they can; he says the can. Clearly he said that because he believes they can.

I know that's just more confusing; the bottom line is I was trying to capture his words and not the logical implication.

Again though - this does not appear to be accurately reflective of the real world. Hell, Trump himself recently fired off an incorrect tweet because he took the talking opinion heads discussion as news.

It's a very real concern, a huge negative impact on the fox news brand (if you care about accuracy) and him sweeping the entire issue under the rug as "well, the viewers can figure it out" when we all know well that they can't/don't.

I just want to be sure that people clearly understand that we aren't just blindly rage voting his responses (I upvoted a few of his good ones). There is a clear issue that he neatly - and purposefully - sidestepped.

I dont watch FNC but when I do Bret always seems like he is a straight shooter. He acts like a real news man. Fuck Tucker, that guy is a douche bag. Why does Tucker even have a show when he doesn't let anyone answer his questions before he talks over them with his smug face?

Hi froghat-
I actually think we (journalists) get a lot of news off Twitter, including a lot of breaking news. Things have changed a lot since my early days as a reporter, but we have teams in our news rooms who monitor social media all day long as a lot of news comes directly from these sites. We live in a very "news now" environment and the platforms can help us do our jobs--- I do think we need to be careful not to jump the gun and actually take time to verify sources though. It's also a great way to connect with viewers. I carve out time each morning and evening to reply to viewers via Twitter and we have even gotten a few show ideas this way. Thanks-

Hi Mookler--The best advice I would give a young journalist is to keep going. There will be people who tell you that you aren't good enough or that you don't look a certain way for TV, but if I listened to everyone who tried to tell me something like that I wouldn't be where I am today. I started out in small market TV and the Atlanta bureau of Fox News started in my apartment with nothing but a fax machine and a cell phone. People used to ask me if I worked for the "Simpson Network." Work hard and if someone tells you no, work harder and show them you can do it. Also, as an interviewer, really listen. You can have a list of prepared questions, but if you only follow the list you can really miss out. Ask follow up questions-- be respectful at the same time. And yes, I think this is advice that is still helpful to me today and to fellow journalists.

Do you seriously believe that viewers are incapable of seeing the difference between the way Chris Wallace talks about the news and the way Sean Hannity does? It’s not that hard to tell the difference. There are a few journalist on Fox that clearly don’t share their opinion as much and just kinda share news stories vs the opinionated wing of Fox News (Tucker, Hannity etc)

I’d agree some viewers watch the opinion shows and take it as news but I’d argue that out of the major 3 cable news networks, Fox and MSNBC both have shows with pundits whose political ideology is obvious. To me, that makes it incredibly obvious that you are getting a show with a clear partisan agenda and I’d say most of the time, these pundits are open about their bias.

In one question you answered: "News at fox tries very hard to be balanced and to present all sides." I want to make sure you understand what 'all sides' means. This does NOT mean just what you want reality to be. I don't watch Fox, but I do read the stories posted on Fox websites. Very often the Russia investigation is referred to as a hoax by reporters for Fox. So how can you claim Fox to be balanced when Fox deliberately misleads viewers into believing the Russia investigation is a hoax? There is enormous evidence that it is anything but, starting with the number of indictments and plea deals that many around the Trump campaign have reached with Robert Mueller's investigation.

How about you read my question fully and give me a truly COMPLETE answer about how Fox can be considered balanced? Yes, I did say I want to make sure you understand what all sides means, but the rest of the question was pointed towards Fox in general.

Not everyone here has cable and the opportunity to watch your show, Bret. I made an effort to gear my question towards the news from Fox that I do consume. Thanks for a non-answer.

You're right. Fox News is not balanced, although Bret Baier is a good reporter. But none of the other news stations are balanced either. The others have a Leftist bias. How many stories on nbcnews.com or cnn.com are positive toward Trump versus negative? I can tell you because I've done this experiment before. It's consistently 10 to 1 negative toward Trump. It was similar when Bush was president, overwhelmingly negative. But when Obama was president there was hardly anything negative.

Any idiot can tell the media has a liberal bias. It's ridiculous to obsess over Fox News when the other 90% of the media has the opposite bias.

Hi Bret what's it like to have a country where Americans on both the left and right side of the political spectrum are so politically absorbed and are so self centred towards world issues? "Donald Trump this and Hillary Clinton that". What's the appeal to getting aggravated about it and also why are Americans too ignorant to see how the US is now a political circus of the world and cares about their self centred idea that they're important? Other than that you are doing well I hope?

That's a tough one because I have covered a lot of stories throughout my career. Some of the hurricanes have been pretty unforgettable (I've covered 17 in all) and then I covered the Elián González story for Fox-- that was pretty unforgettable. I would also have to say the 2016 election was pretty unforgettable given the outcome we were all expecting and the poll numbers.

What efforts have to taken to reduce the fake news and conspiracy theories promoted by the entertainment side of your network (Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc..)? Do you think these entertainment segments undermine the credibility of your news reporting?

I cover the President -- we cover the good, the bad, and the ugly. We say what Republicans and Democrats are saying about the President.. his use of Twitter.. how he talks about things.. and we also cover what the administration calls as a big list of accomplishments.. the good, the bad and the ugly... not my job to give him advice.

This is actually fair. Dude is one of the only conservative voices that actually called out Trump for lying.

Sure, it was about the silly hush money payments to his mistress - but it's a start. Maybe he'll branch out and actually address meaningful lies related to Russian interference and obstruction of justice...maybe.

What are your thoughts on new media vs old media? There are A LOT of Americans getting news from YouTube, Twitter, etc like The Young Turks, Secular Talk with Kyle, Ben Shapiro, etc. vs the FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN conglomerates. Thanks!

I can name some that are unbiased in the way that they label the biased articles as opinion, and I can name a few others that are biased but they acknowledge that bias, which is what I want FOX, CNN, and other biased sources to do instead of denying it and accusing the other of bias.

Fox News (whether it's deserved or not) recieves a lot of flak for bias towards the right-wing. What would you tell someone who is vehemently anti-Fox News about your show to convince them to give it a chance?

Fox has a news division and an opinion division. I work for the news side and on my show we cover all sides. We have on Republicans and Democrats. I tell people to watch my show 3 times--- give it a chance. You will see that we cover the news fairly.

It’s not biased towards the right, it is a literal propaganda outlet for the GOP. That some actual news gets reported from time to time is purely by accident. They follow the tried and true Karl Rove tactic of accusing others of the things they are doing, namely being biased, in the tank for a political party/donor class, etc.

Thank you sir for taking the time to answer questions. Can you help me understand why the media is focused on Kanye and not Jim Browns presence with DJT? Mr. Brown has an incredible history in his community and is taken seriously.

News organizations on both sides of the aisle are often criticized for pushing ideological agendas at the expense of misleading their ardent supporters with less than truthful reporting. FOX in particular often draws some of the sharpest condemnation from the journalism community, and public at large, for your approach to covering the news.

1) do you think any of the criticism is justified?

2) how do you respond do the critics that accuse you personally of stoking the fire of partisan politics?

Like McDonald's, Fox News has a limited menu of stories made from pre-prepared ingredients.

Out side of this environment, your reputation basically implies that your are willing to mislead for a paycheck. Fox News employment on your CV seems like a herpes sore to any serious journalistic career.

Can you even justify calling yourself journalist in this environment when working for Fox precludes future jobs for reputable organizations?